Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1887-03-08

his act, nor the sct of himself.
nor dees the case come within she
clause which provides that insurance
shall not extend 20 death or disability
which Usy Be elnsed wholly or in pzrt
by bodily inhruities OF disease. TIE
words bodily inesmities or disease"
90 moi inclode Insanity as raised. As
20 the sftees Of the leading sentences Of
the policy insurinR Crandan against
bodily iniaries elected through exteF-
nal. accidental and violent means, tAe
court holds that this sentence does not
speak OF whst the injury Is caRsed by.
but looks oBiy 20 the means BY which
II is Effected. Ne one soabts that hang
ina - 3 violent means Of death, ae il
effects the body from without. IL -
external, and according TO the decision
as to suicide under policies Of life insur-
ance it cannot. when done BY an insane
perseR. be held 10 be other than acci-
dental. The Judgment OF the Circuit
Court in favor Of plaintiff was correct
and is affirmed.
No. 1244-The Chicago, Darlington 4
Kansas City Company, plaintiff in error.
against the State Of Missonri ez ri,
J0hR Z. Guffy, collector in error from
the Supreme Ooart Of Missouri.-The
judgment appealed from in this case
affirmed the liability 10 taxation in Mis-
souri, for State and County purposes Of
what was the property known as the
Central North Missouri Branch ef the
ST. Joseph and Iowa Branch, mere re-
Gently named Lennen's Branch of the
Burlington & Southwestern Railroad 90.
and now owned BY the Ohieago,
Burlington 4 Kansas City Railroad
Company. The latter claims to have
succeeded to all rights, privileges ard
tmmunities granted to the st. Joseph a
Iowa Railroad in its charter of 1857,
among which was an exemption Of
its stock from taxation for State
and county purposes. In the opinion
Of this Court il is not clear that
the exemption from taxation given in
such extension as that granted to the
Sc. Joseph and Iowa Railroad should
be extended to branch roads construct
ed under the act of 1866, and that stat
ate does not grant immunity from taxa
tion. and as the system became sstab-
lished By IL and is complete in itself
without referring to the other legisla-
tive enactments. the present claim to
exemption must be denied, for il
is the established doetrine Of this
Coart that an immunity from taxation
by State will not be recognized unless
granted in terms teS plain 10 be mis-
taken. The judgment of the Supreme
Court OF Missouri is affirmed.
No. S4.-Thonas Baldwin, plaintiff
ia error, against J. @. Franks, United
States Marshal. in error, from the
Court OF the United States for the Dis
trict of California. This case presents
another phase of the Chinese question
and involves the rights Of Chinese IN
der the Federal law. On the 7th of Feb
rusry, 1886, Baldwin, plaintiff in error,
and other citizens. in the mining town
of Nicholas, Sutter county, California,
drove out Of town With force of armed
men a number Of resident Chinese, by
placing them on board a steamer plying
on the Fesber river, and sending them
out of the limits of the town and coun-
ty. Baldwin was arrested under
warrant issued by a Commissioner
of the Court, charging him with
instigating a conspiracy with GER
tain other psrsoSs 10 deprive these |
Chinese Of the protection Of the |
laws, and equal privileges and i'm
munities under the law. Baldwin ap-
pesled in the Circuit Court for dis
charge on a writ Of habsds corpus, but It |
was refused aud rev he appeals to this
court upon the ground thst the charge
made against him is not sufficient to
justify hIs detention. The Judges in
the Circuit Court we're divided in their
opinion As TO the following questions.
First-Whether the conspiracy which
resulted in the expulsion OF the Chinese
from Nicholas in the manner as set
forth in the record is an offeRse in vic
lation Of section 65l9 Of the United
states statutes. and, il so, whether that
section as applied to such Q state Of
facts is constitutional.
Secoud-Whether the acts charged
against Baldwin and his fellow con-
sOirRtors constitute an oaense within
the meaning Of section 55OS, of the re-
vised statutes, and II so, whether that
section is constitutional.
Third-Whetber such aots 30 per-
formed constitute an offense within the
Of the section of clause 1896 Of
the revised statutes, which makes it an
offense for a person 10 conspire, by force
to prevent, hinder or delay the exeou-
tion Of airy Law of the United States. and
IL so whether that section is coHstitu-
tiOnal.
This Court. in a long and elaborate
opinion by Chief Justice Waite, holds
that the United States undoubtedly /
have power 10 provide for the panish-
ment OF those who are guilty Of depriv- /
ing Chinese subjssts OF any of the |
rights, privileges or immunitiss Quaran- |
teed to them by treaty. Whether that |
power has been exercised or not mast be |
ascertaiaed by examination Of the stat |
utes upon which the charge is based. |
Revised Statutes, sections 500, |
55O3 and 1885, Section 55l9. which |
was the one most deliberately con-
sidered in tbe court below, provides |
for the punishment Of those who In any |
State or territory corspire for the |
purpose Of deprivinR, either directly or |
Indirectly, any person or class of per
sons OF the equal protection of the laws |
or of equal privileges and immunitles |
nndeF the laws. In the case OF the |
United States vs. Harris (i06 United |
States 629) IL Was decided that this
section was unconstitutional. IL is
argued, however. that this sectiOE
although unoou Institutional a. applied 20 /
the facts SET forth in the Harris case, is |
not 80 when applied TO ths facts in this |
case because the persons cOnsPired /
against in the former instances we're |
oitizs ms. while in the latter they we're |
aliens entitled 10 protection under a |
United States treaty.
Is support Of this Argument reliance
il bad on the well settled rule that
statute uay be part constitutional and
part unconstitutional, and that undsr
some circumstances the part which is
constitutional viil be enfofoed and
only that which is unconstitutional re-
ieeted To give effect 20 this rule, how
ever, the part which is constitutional
and that which is unconstitutional must
be capable Of separation, 80 that each
may be placed by itself. This statute
is not Of that character, and the tmita
tion must be made, II at ail, by con
struction, not BY separation. Ihis Il
has often been decided is not enough.
Il is clear in the opiHiou Of the Court
that section 55ls cannot be sustained IN
whole or 10 part IN its operation tn the
State uHiess tbe case Of the United
States w. Harris Is 0verruied, which
this Court sees no reason for doing. A
for section sos, il vas bsld 70 be cos
ssitdiioaai in sr paris fAFsfOugb 10
United States 6l5). and the only qass
ton 20 be decided - whether that Which